3 ms·
I don't think this destroys your argument, but the barycenter of the Earth-Moon system is located, according to wikipedia [1], 4670 km from the center of the E
by johno215 15y ago
I don't think this destroys your argument, but the barycenter of the Earth-Moon system is located, according to wikipedia [1], 4670 km from the center of the Earth.
Interestingly, both the Pluto-Charon and the Sun-Jupiter systems have barycenters above the surface of the primary body.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barycentric_coordinates_(astronomy) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barycentric_coordinates_(astron...
- deleted 15y ago[deleted]
- joshAg 15y agoseems i forgot to multiply by 1.6. whoops. pluto-charon (imo) is a dual dwarf-planet system not planet and moon. Sun Jupiter is my argument for why a planet shouldn't be defined only by barycenter location. updated density: 13.55g/cc. this is about the current density of the core of the earth now. It's about halfway between rhodium and mercury at STP, so not as horribly unlikely, but still pretty out there. Note: all density comparision made based on info from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Density#Densities_of_various_materials http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Density#Densities_of_various_ma...
- maaku 15y ago> Sun Jupiter is my argument for why a planet shouldn't be defined only by barycenter location. But Jupiter doesn't sustain nuclear fusion so it can't be considered in the same category as the sun. If it was a red/brown dwarf, then we would be in a binary system and that'd be a different story entirely.